Judge Who Lost Pants Lawsuit Loses Job
Judge Who Lost Pant Suit Loses Job
By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 31, 2007; Page B04
Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge who lost his $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry cleaner, lost his job yesterday and was ordered to vacate his office, sources said.
Pearson, 57, who had served as a judge for two years, was up for a 10-year term at the Office of Administrative Hearings, but a judicial committee last week voted against reappointing him.
Roy L. Pearson Jr. lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner.
The panel had a seven-page letter hand-delivered to Pearson about 3:30 p.m., directing him to leave his office by 5 p.m. Pearson's term ended in May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners. Since then, he has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser.
A source familiar with the committee's meetings said Pearson's lawsuit played little role in the decision not to reappoint him.
Instead, the committee said it had reviewed Pearson's judicial decisions and audiotapes of proceedings over which he had presided and found he did not demonstrate "appropriate judgment and judicial temperament," according a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Sources said Pearson also was criticized for displaying a "combative" nature with supervisors and colleagues and for failing to comply with policies in drafting opinions.
Administrative law judges hear cases involving city agencies and commissions.
The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges first notified Pearson in August that it might not reappoint him, several weeks after he lost his civil suit against the dry cleaners. Pearson was asked to provide witnesses on his behalf. However, no witnesses testified.
The group met last week at D.C. Superior Court and officially voted not to reappoint Pearson.
Pearson has not responded to recent requests for comment.
By Keith L. Alexander
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 31, 2007; Page B04
Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge who lost his $54 million lawsuit against a Northeast Washington dry cleaner, lost his job yesterday and was ordered to vacate his office, sources said.
Pearson, 57, who had served as a judge for two years, was up for a 10-year term at the Office of Administrative Hearings, but a judicial committee last week voted against reappointing him.
Roy L. Pearson Jr. lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner.
The panel had a seven-page letter hand-delivered to Pearson about 3:30 p.m., directing him to leave his office by 5 p.m. Pearson's term ended in May, at the height of his battle with the dry cleaners. Since then, he has remained on the payroll, making $100,000 a year as an attorney adviser.
A source familiar with the committee's meetings said Pearson's lawsuit played little role in the decision not to reappoint him.
Instead, the committee said it had reviewed Pearson's judicial decisions and audiotapes of proceedings over which he had presided and found he did not demonstrate "appropriate judgment and judicial temperament," according a source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the case.
Sources said Pearson also was criticized for displaying a "combative" nature with supervisors and colleagues and for failing to comply with policies in drafting opinions.
Administrative law judges hear cases involving city agencies and commissions.
The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges first notified Pearson in August that it might not reappoint him, several weeks after he lost his civil suit against the dry cleaners. Pearson was asked to provide witnesses on his behalf. However, no witnesses testified.
The group met last week at D.C. Superior Court and officially voted not to reappoint Pearson.
Pearson has not responded to recent requests for comment.
0
-
Damn the bad luck it couldn't happened to a BETTER GUY Pizz on him 0 -
Glad to hear it. After what he did he had no buisness setting on the bench.
Rick0 -
He knew from the get go that he had no suit. Don 0 -
A hanging would be too good for him. 0 -
I would have had the Dry Cleaner owner notify him.[:D][:D] Jesse and Al will be upset.. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by select-fire
I would have had the Dry Cleaner owner notify him.[:D][:D] Jesse and Al will be upset..
At nootime on Halloween wearing a Joker's Mask! [:D][:D][:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
He knew from the get go that he had no suit. Don
If his suit wasn't being cleaned why did he sue the drycleaner?0 -
What goes around comes around[:D] Serves him right. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by He Dog
If his suit wasn't being cleaned why did he sue the drycleaner? Since when do lawyers need a valid reason to file suit????
(I'm sure ol' Matt will soon opine.)
No teekie, No laundrie; No winnie suit, No jobbie for U!0 -
He clearly had no "suit".
What a loss for the taxpayers![xx(]0 -
To avoid the inevitable charge of "racism" that will surely be launched by Jessie and Al, he will be given another plumb, easy and high paying government job.
Bet on it. If you doubt, check on this guy in a few years and get back to me.0 -
Sounds like he NEEDED to be UN-seated.
Good job. [:D]0 -
They should make him pay the cleaners 54Mill..[^] THAT would be JUSTICE!! 0 -
Justice is him jaywalking into a cement mixer. 0 -
Where is the lawsuit from the cleaners? If I was on that jury I would give them a very large sum. At the very least you would think they would have a case to get all their money back that they had to spend on a lawyer. Poor judge. [:(] I'm sure Jessie and Al are already all over this playing the racism card. I'm from MO and a while back a janatorial service that cleans state offices was busted for having mainly ILLEGALS working for him, the governer canceled the contract and gave it to another company. Now the idiot who had all the illegals working for him (and happens to be black) is suing the state for "discrimination" because the company now cleaning the offices is owned by a white guy. No wonder racism is still a problem because crap like that makes my blood boil and I'm not racists-yes I have black friends. Any time the going gets rough the racism card gets played and they get their way. [:(!][:(!][:(!][:(!] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcon12
He knew from the get go that he had no suit. Don
he had the suit [:D]jacket just no the pants0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
To avoid the inevitable charge of "racism" that will surely be launched by Jessie and Al, he will be given another plumb, easy and high paying government job.
Bet on it. If you doubt, check on this guy in a few years and get back to me.
He seems to be a prime example of the type of individual that most any public university system would fawn over to head up their diversity program.0 -
It will be difficult for Jessie and Al to play the race card since the cleaner's owners are Asian, I believe. They are more in a minority than the blacks. Poor Jessie, no one to shake down! You won't hear from him in this one. Tom 0 -
He singlehandedly put a hard working asian immigrant family's business back nearly a decade.
They went from having a few shops to back to one.
Thanks Pearson, you're a real POS.
D.0 -
"He seems to be a prime example of the type of individual that most any public university system would fawn over to head up their diversity program."
You are right, kimi.
*He has a law degree.
*He is a minority.
*He has lost his job because of a racist system.
I see a $125K job as diversity head at a major university.0 -
I wouldn't be surprised if the cleaners got a lot more business due to the exposure. 0 -
Yep...but most of the "people" in DC don't clean their clothes, anyway.
Doug0 -
--
-Now this jive MoFo sits beside Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden as the third poster child for affirmative action.0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
"He seems to be a prime example of the type of individual that most any public university system would fawn over to head up their diversity program."
You are right, kimi.
*He has a law degree.
*He is a minority.
*He has lost his job because of a racist system.
I see a $125K job as diversity head at a major university.
I think the major universities are paying out at least 190 to 200 thou now.0 -
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
"He seems to be a prime example of the type of individual that most any public university system would fawn over to head up their diversity program."
You are right, kimi.
*He has a law degree.
*He is a minority.
*He has lost his job because of a racist system.
I see a $125K job as diversity head at a major university.
Hey, Ward Churchill's office will be empty soon.
Sounds like Pearson would fit right in!0 -
quote:Originally posted by kimi
quote:Originally posted by allen griggs
"He seems to be a prime example of the type of individual that most any public university system would fawn over to head up their diversity program."
You are right, kimi.
*He has a law degree.
*He is a minority.
*He has lost his job because of a racist system.
I see a $125K job as diversity head at a major university.
I think the major universities are paying out at least 190 to 200 thou now.
See there! I be goins to undepay de brother, because I is a racist cracker.0 -
quote:After what he did he had no buisness setting on the bench.
Sounds like he had no business sitting on the bench BEFORE what happened. Does anyone see some additional appeals and trial reviews coming up?
He will brobably bring up his lose of job at the "Suit appeal".0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
27 comments